5 ms·

Hiding the dislike info on POTUS seems important now. Hiding the dislike info on CNN seems important now. Public trust in government is low. Public trust in

Hiding the dislike info on POTUS seems important now. Hiding the dislike info on CNN seems important now. Public trust in government is low. Public trust in corporate media is low. It's been policy to manufacture consent in the US for quite a while now. Hard to say this move isn't more of the same, and it's equally hard to say it helps more than it hurts too.

uejfiweun 5y ago
Yeah, this is pretty obvious. The government is getting very unpopular right now, just take a look at the like/dislike ratios for any vaccine related announcements or inflation related announcements. They are just gonna shut the whole party down if they can't spin it the way they want. Very authoritarian. It's not a huge change, but these things happen bit by bit - the US is slowly converging with China.
- lostgame 5y ago
  Wow. Crazy people still exist on HN. Good reminder.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I am not an anti vaxxer or anything, I am just stating what I have seen on youtube on these videos. For example this was after 10 sec of searching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 Thanks for the insult, though. Intolerant closed-minded assholes still exist on HN. Good reminder.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      The fact that the number of crazy people who are voicing their opinions is surging is exactly why Google needed to dump the dislike button. The toxicity is clearly causing what will soon be irreparable harm, and political bandwagoning is the main cause. I really don't think pointing out that the number of crazies is on the rise helps your point.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        This is circular and incomplete as an argument. Google did not need to dump dislike buttons. Google, and or others who want them to dump the button, wanted to dump the button. "had to" has no place in this discussion.
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        I disagree. Youtube is about to face huge regulatory pressure along with Facebook. They need to get ahead of it if they want to come out unscathed. Sure, you can say that no one "has to" do anything, but this was absolutely something that will help them avoid regulation, which seems close enough to "has to" for me.
        ddingus 5y ago
        How does no dislike button help?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Stops political trolls from burying things like the surgeon general going on morning tv to ask people to get vaccinated.
        ddingus 5y ago
        That's hand wavy, and definitely not a solid case for "had to." And what regulatory pressure? The US Government has no business dealing with trolls. First Amendment. This and other moves to get around limitations on regulating speech by using private agents is not going to do any real good, and will do considerable harm. Valid, many would argue necessary, dissent is being suppressed in the same fashion, and all that happens to coincide with very high levels of government disapproval. Anyone trying to make the case massive dislikes aimed at major news networks, POTUS and others has to also explain how doing that is not actually suppressing meaningful and justifiable disapproval. Hard case to make. Funny how that all works isn't it? Got anything else?
  - chrissnell 5y ago
    He made a point and added some speculation. You made a cheap, ad hominem attack. You are breaking the rules here and you are the one that’s out of line. CC @dang
  - ddingus 5y ago
    First, you didn't really need to judge anyone. Second, you could have contributed a rebuttal and I wish you had. :(
- ddingus 5y ago
  Yup. It's manufactured consent and managed down dissent in action.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
    - ddingus 5y ago
      That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.
aprinsen 5y ago
I guess I've been pretty skeptical of these numbers. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but I am unconvinced that the like dislike ratio on a YouTube video is really reflective of public opinion writ large.
- ddingus 5y ago
  I see it differently. Where there are very unfavorable ratios, there usually are questions. On that basis alone, hiding the data hurts more than it helps.
judge2020 5y ago
Are you saying the administration itself was involved in getting this done, or that Google et al. are, of their own accord, interested in going out of their way to burn PR (and real premium subscriber dollars) to aid the administration?
- ddingus 5y ago
  I'm not saying either of those things. Look at the recent move to make auto manufacturers responsible for reducing drunk driving. There is a growing trend to regulate through corporations. I am saying that. I am also saying we should be questioning that trend.
- coolso 5y ago
  > or that Google et al. are, of their own accord, interested in going out of their way to burn PR (and real premium subscriber dollars) to aid the administration? Given that after Trump won in 2016, a video leaked of a Google meeting of higher-ups literally in tears that their side didn't win, I'm thinking it's this.
rStar 5y ago
it helps the advertisers
aww_dang 5y ago
It was funny when Baidu censored Winnie-the-Pooh memes. When YT censored "Let's go Brandon" videos, I chuckled, but the humor was darker. Now they are hiding downvotes. On the US "National News" YT channel, almost all of the promoted videos are downvoted. I'm always amazed at the discrepancy between what's promoted in the MSM and where popular opinion is. Meanwhile top podcasters routinely trounce MSM viewership ratings. Perhaps these are the death throes of a dying propaganda machine?
- lovethyenemy 5y ago
  >Perhaps these are the death throes of a dying propaganda machine? This is my thought as well. Its funny how quickly we've gone from people trying to redefine censorship, i.e.: "it's not censorship if a corporation does it!", to just blatantly pathetic attempts to squash dissent like this latest move.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Here's the thing about that: The propaganda machine is not dying at all! It's running just fine, and will be well funded. You can count on that, even if the losses are sustained over a longer period of time. And it's all about basic economic policy, and it's about the war machine. Ever increasing economic freedom using the miliary as a world police and defense system is very unpopular. People see it as unjust, unnecessary, and painfully expensive use of their hard work and tax dollars. Back in the 70's as a grade school kid, we had a media week that I remember vividly. It was about bias in media and also understanding advertising as propaganda. (I know, crazy to think about as a class room topic for young people today, right?) We went through the various propaganda forms using ADS for context. Plain Clothes Bandwagon Cherry picking Etc... We were required to find one AD for each form and explain how the propaganda is used to sell a product by advocating for it in what appears to be authoritative and favorable ways, but really is a lie, or at best, hiding of what would be obvious downsides. In media, the idea of there always being bias was introduced, and I believe we had these weeks (and there were two, one for media, one for propaganda / ADS) in response to the controversial decision by President Reagan to repeal the fairness doctrine. (That doctrine required equal time be given to opposing views and did not allow one point of view to dominate the broadcast and print media and this was seen as important to the concept of a public commons and a robust body politic.) Yes, 8th grade discussions. Simplified from what I put here, but the core elements were definitely in the material. I was very interested and thought about this often as I grew up, but I digress. The media part, this idea of their always being bias centered around the idea of objectivity and just how hard that is to actually do. It takes larger numbers of us, working together over a sustained time to be objective. A single person, or even small team however motivated and funded they may be will flat out have bias. Secondly, that bias is? OK! Given how expensive and time consuming objective material is, the idea of us having to have it for the news and other public commons type discussions on policy, war, economics, and such does not make any sense. So far so good, until some problems showed up, and those problems are: Clarity - where fact and opinion are well differentiated and easy for the reader to discern Honesty - where the bias of the piece is clear, authors disclose conflicts of interest Side bar: A related thing is this concept of "always two sides to every story." and by including both sides the material is somehow more better! It's not. Fact is, there are the hard facts, who, what, where, when, why and how type stuff, and there is opinion as to what those facts might mean. Sky is blue, many say it's orange, heads up debate tonight at 11! We report, you decide! End side bar. Back to the media and advertising weeks of education. Regarding media bias, we were required to find news media, written from different points of view, and to determine whether the stated bias, or point of view, is accurate. To prep us for this activity, they gave us news paper clippings, magazine articles and mentioned broadcast media, radio and news programs we could watch as time permits and they highlighted various points of view as examples. The big ones was labor / populist vs big business and State vs Local government. What stuck with me was this statement from our teacher at the time: "There is less from the labor point of view today and many expect that to continue." Was something along those lines anyway. I do not recall exactly, but I do recall the idea of labor being sidelined in the discussion and wondering why that is happening when so many do labor. Today, we get almost zero news and commentary from big, corporate media written from the labor / populist point of view. Everything is business or state point of view framing. Nearly everything! I have watched it decline, until pretty much gone, and then the Internet happened! One last thing to say on all this: Big media branding is not accurate. FOX won in court asserting it's right to force journalists to lie and misrepresent. For profit news is not fair, does not serve the public interest, and frankly does not inform people very well at all! Is there any wonder it's unpopular and widely disliked? Similar dynamics are in play for government. When people produce and deliver news and commentary from the labor / populist point of view, and it is at all reputable, the ratings flat out crush big media all day long. When policy is floated out there to address basic issues seeing clear majority support are then walked back, mixed in with obscure, unpopular policy, disapproval spikes in a day almost. These moves are almost laughable, if they were not so serious in nature. We are moving into increasingly tough, authoritarian and potentially expensive, high risk times, in my view. And back to my original point: The machine is not dying at all! Dissent is widespread yet seemingly appearing to be tepid and it's difficult for ordinary people to get an accurate view. In particular, minority, contrarian views are amplified consistently whether they have merit or not. A great example is the talking heads, where an otherwise obvious thing is literally debated into being questionable! All it takes is a few, or even two talking heads, one rational and one full bat shit put on repeat for a few weeks in a row and suddenly, "many say..." is a thing! For decades now, long overdue policy has somehow failed in an amazing number of ways, leading people to believe our government is packed chock full of idiots, when the fact is more grim: those people are being paid to do what they are doing far more than they are simply bat shit, or wrong somehow. They understand what they are doing. So no. The machine is not dying, in my view. What we are seeing is a far more overt, aggressive move toward authoritarianism and fascism as clear evidence of it's ongoing success requiring more be done because having more people worse off every year tends to add right up.

uejfiweun 5y ago

Yeah, this is pretty obvious. The government is getting very unpopular right now, just take a look at the like/dislike ratios for any vaccine related announcements or inflation related announcements. They are just gonna shut the whole party down if they can't spin it the way they want. Very authoritarian. It's not a huge change, but these things happen bit by bit - the US is slowly converging with China.

lostgame 5y ago
Wow. Crazy people still exist on HN. Good reminder.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  I am not an anti vaxxer or anything, I am just stating what I have seen on youtube on these videos. For example this was after 10 sec of searching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 Thanks for the insult, though. Intolerant closed-minded assholes still exist on HN. Good reminder.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The fact that the number of crazy people who are voicing their opinions is surging is exactly why Google needed to dump the dislike button. The toxicity is clearly causing what will soon be irreparable harm, and political bandwagoning is the main cause. I really don't think pointing out that the number of crazies is on the rise helps your point.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      This is circular and incomplete as an argument. Google did not need to dump dislike buttons. Google, and or others who want them to dump the button, wanted to dump the button. "had to" has no place in this discussion.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        I disagree. Youtube is about to face huge regulatory pressure along with Facebook. They need to get ahead of it if they want to come out unscathed. Sure, you can say that no one "has to" do anything, but this was absolutely something that will help them avoid regulation, which seems close enough to "has to" for me.
        ddingus 5y ago
        How does no dislike button help?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Stops political trolls from burying things like the surgeon general going on morning tv to ask people to get vaccinated.
        ddingus 5y ago
        That's hand wavy, and definitely not a solid case for "had to." And what regulatory pressure? The US Government has no business dealing with trolls. First Amendment. This and other moves to get around limitations on regulating speech by using private agents is not going to do any real good, and will do considerable harm. Valid, many would argue necessary, dissent is being suppressed in the same fashion, and all that happens to coincide with very high levels of government disapproval. Anyone trying to make the case massive dislikes aimed at major news networks, POTUS and others has to also explain how doing that is not actually suppressing meaningful and justifiable disapproval. Hard case to make. Funny how that all works isn't it? Got anything else?
- chrissnell 5y ago
  He made a point and added some speculation. You made a cheap, ad hominem attack. You are breaking the rules here and you are the one that’s out of line. CC @dang
- ddingus 5y ago
  First, you didn't really need to judge anyone. Second, you could have contributed a rebuttal and I wish you had. :(
ddingus 5y ago
Yup. It's manufactured consent and managed down dissent in action.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
  - ddingus 5y ago
    That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.

aprinsen 5y ago

I guess I've been pretty skeptical of these numbers. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but I am unconvinced that the like dislike ratio on a YouTube video is really reflective of public opinion writ large.

ddingus 5y ago
I see it differently. Where there are very unfavorable ratios, there usually are questions. On that basis alone, hiding the data hurts more than it helps.

judge2020 5y ago

Are you saying the administration itself was involved in getting this done, or that Google et al. are, of their own accord, interested in going out of their way to burn PR (and real premium subscriber dollars) to aid the administration?

ddingus 5y ago
I'm not saying either of those things. Look at the recent move to make auto manufacturers responsible for reducing drunk driving. There is a growing trend to regulate through corporations. I am saying that. I am also saying we should be questioning that trend.
coolso 5y ago
> or that Google et al. are, of their own accord, interested in going out of their way to burn PR (and real premium subscriber dollars) to aid the administration? Given that after Trump won in 2016, a video leaked of a Google meeting of higher-ups literally in tears that their side didn't win, I'm thinking it's this.

rStar 5y ago

it helps the advertisers

aww_dang 5y ago

It was funny when Baidu censored Winnie-the-Pooh memes. When YT censored "Let's go Brandon" videos, I chuckled, but the humor was darker. Now they are hiding downvotes. On the US "National News" YT channel, almost all of the promoted videos are downvoted. I'm always amazed at the discrepancy between what's promoted in the MSM and where popular opinion is. Meanwhile top podcasters routinely trounce MSM viewership ratings. Perhaps these are the death throes of a dying propaganda machine?

lovethyenemy 5y ago
>Perhaps these are the death throes of a dying propaganda machine? This is my thought as well. Its funny how quickly we've gone from people trying to redefine censorship, i.e.: "it's not censorship if a corporation does it!", to just blatantly pathetic attempts to squash dissent like this latest move.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Here's the thing about that: The propaganda machine is not dying at all! It's running just fine, and will be well funded. You can count on that, even if the losses are sustained over a longer period of time. And it's all about basic economic policy, and it's about the war machine. Ever increasing economic freedom using the miliary as a world police and defense system is very unpopular. People see it as unjust, unnecessary, and painfully expensive use of their hard work and tax dollars. Back in the 70's as a grade school kid, we had a media week that I remember vividly. It was about bias in media and also understanding advertising as propaganda. (I know, crazy to think about as a class room topic for young people today, right?) We went through the various propaganda forms using ADS for context. Plain Clothes Bandwagon Cherry picking Etc... We were required to find one AD for each form and explain how the propaganda is used to sell a product by advocating for it in what appears to be authoritative and favorable ways, but really is a lie, or at best, hiding of what would be obvious downsides. In media, the idea of there always being bias was introduced, and I believe we had these weeks (and there were two, one for media, one for propaganda / ADS) in response to the controversial decision by President Reagan to repeal the fairness doctrine. (That doctrine required equal time be given to opposing views and did not allow one point of view to dominate the broadcast and print media and this was seen as important to the concept of a public commons and a robust body politic.) Yes, 8th grade discussions. Simplified from what I put here, but the core elements were definitely in the material. I was very interested and thought about this often as I grew up, but I digress. The media part, this idea of their always being bias centered around the idea of objectivity and just how hard that is to actually do. It takes larger numbers of us, working together over a sustained time to be objective. A single person, or even small team however motivated and funded they may be will flat out have bias. Secondly, that bias is? OK! Given how expensive and time consuming objective material is, the idea of us having to have it for the news and other public commons type discussions on policy, war, economics, and such does not make any sense. So far so good, until some problems showed up, and those problems are: Clarity - where fact and opinion are well differentiated and easy for the reader to discern Honesty - where the bias of the piece is clear, authors disclose conflicts of interest Side bar: A related thing is this concept of "always two sides to every story." and by including both sides the material is somehow more better! It's not. Fact is, there are the hard facts, who, what, where, when, why and how type stuff, and there is opinion as to what those facts might mean. Sky is blue, many say it's orange, heads up debate tonight at 11! We report, you decide! End side bar. Back to the media and advertising weeks of education. Regarding media bias, we were required to find news media, written from different points of view, and to determine whether the stated bias, or point of view, is accurate. To prep us for this activity, they gave us news paper clippings, magazine articles and mentioned broadcast media, radio and news programs we could watch as time permits and they highlighted various points of view as examples. The big ones was labor / populist vs big business and State vs Local government. What stuck with me was this statement from our teacher at the time: "There is less from the labor point of view today and many expect that to continue." Was something along those lines anyway. I do not recall exactly, but I do recall the idea of labor being sidelined in the discussion and wondering why that is happening when so many do labor. Today, we get almost zero news and commentary from big, corporate media written from the labor / populist point of view. Everything is business or state point of view framing. Nearly everything! I have watched it decline, until pretty much gone, and then the Internet happened! One last thing to say on all this: Big media branding is not accurate. FOX won in court asserting it's right to force journalists to lie and misrepresent. For profit news is not fair, does not serve the public interest, and frankly does not inform people very well at all! Is there any wonder it's unpopular and widely disliked? Similar dynamics are in play for government. When people produce and deliver news and commentary from the labor / populist point of view, and it is at all reputable, the ratings flat out crush big media all day long. When policy is floated out there to address basic issues seeing clear majority support are then walked back, mixed in with obscure, unpopular policy, disapproval spikes in a day almost. These moves are almost laughable, if they were not so serious in nature. We are moving into increasingly tough, authoritarian and potentially expensive, high risk times, in my view. And back to my original point: The machine is not dying at all! Dissent is widespread yet seemingly appearing to be tepid and it's difficult for ordinary people to get an accurate view. In particular, minority, contrarian views are amplified consistently whether they have merit or not. A great example is the talking heads, where an otherwise obvious thing is literally debated into being questionable! All it takes is a few, or even two talking heads, one rational and one full bat shit put on repeat for a few weeks in a row and suddenly, "many say..." is a thing! For decades now, long overdue policy has somehow failed in an amazing number of ways, leading people to believe our government is packed chock full of idiots, when the fact is more grim: those people are being paid to do what they are doing far more than they are simply bat shit, or wrong somehow. They understand what they are doing. So no. The machine is not dying, in my view. What we are seeing is a far more overt, aggressive move toward authoritarianism and fascism as clear evidence of it's ongoing success requiring more be done because having more people worse off every year tends to add right up.